“(Steve) Beck applied ‘pulsed stimulation signals’ directly to the eyelid in 1968 to ‘get away from the screen and the image completely’ as he says, ‘and affect images directly from the body itself, much like phosphenes and other eidetic images.’ “

from this book art cinemait's a good one, 20 bucks on amazon, covers a lot of great stuff, smells and feels good too.

4.27.2010

There is a line by Verlaine that I will not remember again.There is a street nearby that is off limits to my feet.There is a mirror that has seen me for the last time.There is a door I have closed until the end of the world.Among the books in my library (I'm looking at them now) are some I will never open.This summer I will be fifty years old.Death is using me up, relentlessly.

The information in the "for seth" post actually fits perfectly with the comment I was going to make earlier. It's not that I've "got it out for her [Abramovic]." It's that I think she's a phony. She's a wanna be guru/spiritual-leader/head-master/dominatrix perpetrating as an artist. And the info you posted backs up that idea. It's classic. She set that up, inviting people to act violently toward her, and then when she gets what she wants, she uses it as justification to totally control people. I think the video you posted of her b.s. reality-show-spiritual-retreat is a perfect example of her true aspirations. Every piece of "art" she sets up is an opportunity to extend her black-clawed hand and take more "power" for herself. She's feeding her vacuous soul on the lives of others. She's a kind of Voldemort of the art world. Or a hyena of the high plains. She identified a savannah with easy prey, and she set out to stalking and eating the flesh of the feeble minded.

In an interview published in 1998, she [Abramovic] described how her "mother took complete military-style control of me and my brother. I was not allowed to leave the house after 10 o'clock at night till I was 29 years old. ... [A]ll the performances in Yugoslavia I did before 10 o'clock in the evening because I had to be home then. It's completely insane, but all of my cutting myself, whipping myself, burning myself, almost losing my life in the firestar, everything was done before 10 in the evening."

Her work is all about control.She's picking up where her mother left off.

4.24.2010

just to argue that Marina Abramović's art isn't about controlling others. certainly it plays a role, because i think all art tries to control the audience in some way in order to be 'properly viewed.' like you can't touch sculptures or talk in a movie theater. Obviously her art brings these rules into question by making herself the object and inviting the audience to play a direct role. But i think the importance of having constrictions is to get rid of distractions from what the piece is about. sort of editing the situation.

from wikipedia:

Rhythm 0, 1974To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.Abramović had placed upon a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were scissors, a knife, a whip, and, most notoriously, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained impassive) several people began to act quite aggressively. As Abramović described it later:“The experience I learned was that…if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed.” ... “I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”[11]

Future Lacking will be a place to collect things more political in nature, yet it will not necessarily be overtly political. Energy, Art, Design, Food, etc. –– these are some of the things you'll find there. I want to keep it visually interesting so you'll find pics for the sake of pics as well.

Check it out. Let me know what you think. "Follow" the blog by scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking the "follow" button.

The trailer is very strange. Not only is it a jumbled mess of incoherency, but throughout the trailer it uses images and video with the "Getty Image" water-mark front and center. A little strange. Is this a documentary on gerrymandering or on appropriation? You decide.

***update***

As clarified by Reichert himself in the comments here, "That's actually an ages old temp trailer that NY Mag accidentally linked to."

I personally think this is ridiculous. Shouldn't it work both ways. The point of Abramovic's piece is to make people have to brush up against nude people, essentially to make them uncomfortable. Why can't it go both ways. If Abramovic had any balls she'd stand up for the rights of the MoMa patrons to poke and prod as they please. Or is it, "I want to challenge you and make you uncomfortable but you have to be passive. You can't play back."

A recent court decision — that a Bush-era deregulation of broadband providers keeps Obama's FCC from imposing regulations like net neutrality in the manner it originally tried — makes our cause more important. All that's needed for the FCC to take action on net neutrality is a simple reclassification of broadband providers — but the FCC won't revisit the Bush-era decision unless it gets strong support from the public for doing so. Already, key Senate Democrats have urged the FCC to do so during congressional hearings. Now the FCC needs to hear from thousands of members of the public.

4.09.2010

Fri Apr. 9, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
This week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals dealt what looked like a deathblow to "net neutrality," the principle that Internet providers shouldn't get to pick and choose which information moves quickest over the web. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has one last chance to prevent these companies from fundamentally changing how the Internet works—and not for the better. But will the commissioners take on the telecoms?

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are making a play to control the Internet. Our communities rely on the Internet to speak without a corporate filter, and to be able to organize and hold public officials and corporations accountable. But if these companies succeed, a few major ...

There's a way out of this legal mess. The easiest route to restore an open Internet is for the FCC to simply vote to reclassify broadband under Title 2 of the Communications Act. This move would return to the agency the powers to protect consumers that it had before Bush-er...

Large parts of a US plan to give its citizens high speed net access are threatened by a court ruling involving net neutrality, regulators have warned. The FCC has admitted that the "decision may affect a significant number of important plan recommendations". In a ...